Is President Zuma's beefed-up Cabinet good for the country? Lindiwe Mlandu, who backs the bigger Cabinet, takes on a less-enthusiastic Rebekah Kendal.

Lindiwe Mlandu reckons that a bigger Cabinet should, in theory, lead to better service delivery…

Each administration has its own vision and that may include change. President Jacob Zuma promised to create an "efficient, caring and effective administration". The larger Cabinet shows he's commitment to service delivery.

The new Cabinet is larger than the previous one because it has six new ministries with the mandate to deliver on the government's promises.

The increase in the number of portfolios shows that Zuma is taking into consideration the amount of work that needs to be done. South Africa has many challenges and the previous, smaller, Cabinet fell short of addressing these challenges, so why not change the strategy?

Let's take a look at some of these changes. The ANC decided to split the education department into two, in an attempt to address basic education separately and some scholars have welcomed the move. Two heads are always better than one and this way there'll be more emphasis on each level.

Another new ministry is that of Rural Development and Land Reform. Without a doubt, rural areas have been neglected. This new department aims to rectify that. It will better people's lives and the number of people moving to the over-populated urban areas might decrease.

The introduction of the Planning Commission might be just what the doctor ordered. This ministry will be led by Trevor Manuel and it is going to monitor government's performance. It will keep tabs on the government and it will apply pressure to government departments to do what's expected of them.

The Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and People with Disabilities will improve the lives of these vulnerable people. This department will provide help for women living in rural areas and people with disabilities — it will address their challenges. This is necessary if we want all South Africans to benefit in our democracy.

A larger cabinet will function effectively and that will speed up service delivery. The bottom line is improving the lives of ordinary citizens and that means more staff. In business they say: spend money in order to make money. In politics, it's more ministries to achieve desirable results.

Change is good and this new government has done just that. Citizens have to sit back and watch to see if the 34 new ministers are going to bring about change.

A cynical Rebekah Kendal argues that bigger doesn't always mean better. Sometimes it just means more expensive…

Let me state from the outset that there are some aspects of President Zuma's Cabinet that get my full approval. Others, such as the appointment of the militant Fikile Mbalula to the post of deputy minister of police, elicit significantly less enthusiasm.

But, try as I might to focus my attention on the positive, I am struggling to find a justification for the expansion and re-organisation of the Cabinet. Sure, I have Zuma's assurance that it was expanded to improve efficiency and service delivery. But how, exactly?

For the large part, service delivery boils down to bureaucracy. If the existing bureaucratic system has failed to carry out its service delivery mandate, it is difficult to imagine how increasing the level of bureaucracy is going to improve things. Surely the focus should be on streamlining existing systems to ensure that they are more effective and creating more rigorous parliamentary groups to hold the Cabinet to account?

Let's consider a few examples of governance. The UK has a cabinet of 22, France, 16, and India, with its massive population of over a billion, only 30. At the other end of the scale, Kenya's unity government has 40 ministers and 52 deputies, and Zimbabwe's newly-formed cabinet contains 47 ministers. The latter are hardly paragons of effective and efficient governance.

Now, let us consider the six new ministries.

Everyone is rather chuffed that Trevor Manuel will still be part of the Cabinet, but his role seems to be either a little redundant (where does it leave Parliament, or for that matter, the president?) or autocratic (Zuma suggested that the ministry would have a monitoring and oversight role over all three spheres of government).

The splitting of the Education Ministry could have been done at a lower level within the ministry, at far less expense and a smaller chance of a conflict of interests between the two departments. The fact that two staunch Zuma allies (Blade Nzimande and Angie Motshekga) were appointed the respective ministers can hardly be ignored.

Likewise, it is difficult to understand (if you overlook the appointment of trade unionist Ebrahim Patel) the need for an Economic Development Ministry in conjunction with a Finance Ministry. And while the Ministry for Women, Youth, Children and People with Disabilities may have been created with good intentions, these categories already fall under the department of social development.

Finally, let's consider the cost. Based on last year's figures, it is estimated that Zuma's additional ministries, ministers and deputies will cost the taxpayer an additional R1-billion annually. At least. Last year, the smallest ministry cost more than R300-million. The salaries of an additional six ministers and eight deputies will set the taxpayer back another R20-million each year and that doesn't even begin to cover the additional security costs. Quite a hefty five-year price tag for changes which may very well be unnecessary.

Those new ministers had better be darn efficient.

Do you agree with Lindiwe or Rebekah? Share your thoughts below…

The beggar gauntlet Rebekah Kendal reckons that begging is bad for SA because it fosters a culture of dependency.

Visit our politics page Need the latest political news, features, interviews and profiles? Visit our dedicated page...

Behind closed doors Rebekah Kendal reckons that the real losers in the Percy saga are victims of domestic abuse.